Human nature is such that while people may oppose something in the abstract, they like specific instances of it. For example, polls show that many people disdain Congress as a whole but still like their representative.
Similarly, many oppose government regulations in general, but rally to support specific ones. When push comes to shove, that impulse undercuts those who see drastic reductions in regulation as a way to faster economic growth or a more just society.
There are few better examples of this than the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act of 2007. It requires modifying drains on swimming pools and hot tubs so that no one can be entrapped by suction and drowned or otherwise injured. This is of particular interest to Minnesotans after the tragic 2007 case of a 6-year-old who lost much of her small intestine to a kiddie pool drain with a missing cover and died the next year after numerous surgeries.
Such circumstances make nearly anyone cringe in horror. It is thus understandable that three Minnesota House members at the time – Betty McCollum, John Kline and Jim Ramstad – signed on as co-sponsors of the legislation. Sen. Amy Klobuchar succeeded in adding an amendment that required more stringent measures for pools with single drains.
That the bill is named for the deceased granddaughter of James A. Baker, former White House chief of staff and cabinet member in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, also helps explain why the bill passed both houses with overwhelming voice-vote majorities. When one of the grand old men of the party most opposed to government regulation pushes for a bill, philosophical objections tend to fade away.
Yet the bill raises the same questions as any other government regulation of private economic activity.
Is it necessary? Economic theory, at least that championed by those who believe that government interference in markets usually makes society worse off, says not.
One argument, often made by Nobelists Milton Friedman and Gary Becker is that markets themselves incorporate forces that result in appropriate measures being taken.
If the public does not want its children killed in unsafe pools, the theory goes, it won’t patronize those with unsafe drains and will instead seek out safe pools. Owners of unsafe pools will lose business and thus will have a financial incentive to correct any deficiencies.
If the public does not pay attention to whether pools are unsafe or not, then according to this thinking, that is an indication that the very small chance of an accident doesn’t concern them. (Drain-related accidents commonly account for less than five of the 2.4 million deaths in our country each year.) Just as for helmetless motorcycle riding, if the public is willing to take the chance, government imposing an unwanted solution will make society worse off rather than better.
Is there a market-based alternative to government rules? Nobelist Ronald Coase argued that if property rights are strictly defined, economically efficient outcomes result without government regulation. In this case, if pool owners are legally liable for injuries caused by unsafe facilities (as they generally already were) then the fear of being sued by injured parties will motivate them to install safety equipment. And if they judge the likelihood of such suits minuscule and choose to do nothing, that indicates the true cost to society of the occasional injury is small relative to the cost of preventing it. In other words, it is more efficient not to take precautions.
Do the benefits of regulation exceed the costs? Here one must place a value on human life and injury and make some estimate of the cost of altering new or existing facilities. The reported number of such pool injuries and deaths vary. One source cites 12 deaths and about 70 injuries from 1999 to 2008. Another lists 150 drain entrapment “incidents” with 36 deaths over 20 years.
The original bill estimated compliance costs of $40 million by 2012. Retrofitting drains costs $2,000-$3,000 and the additional shutoff mandated by the Klobuchar amendment would add $600-$800 for a typical facility. As is usual in such cases, the marginal cost of adding the safety features to pools built in the future is far less than that of fixing existing ones. Using the “value of a statistical life” and methodologies common in such analyses, the Congressional Budget Office found that benefits did exceed costs.
What will the regulation cost to enforce? Based on news reports, many pools are not yet in compliance, particularly those in apartment complexes. The law is administered by the Consumer Products Safety Commission, which lacks the staff to check pools nationwide. The government is spending little on enforcement and getting little.
What about personal freedom? Followers of F.A. Hayek, as some presidential candidates profess to be, would see government mandates about pool drains as yet another step down the “road to serfdom.” This is inherently subjective. I don’t feel my freedom is infringed by this law, or most other regulations, but the philosophical pendulum in this country is swinging toward those who do.
© 2011 Edward Lotterman
Chanarambie Consulting, Inc.